Saturday, February 17, 2018

I estimate only 10-12 Primates care about the NBA, none of whom can be bothered to curate their own thread to avoid detracting from what this site is really about: eliminationist rhetoric and precognition.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

That said, they're moving into a new stadium and the NBA fan in me is considering getting a 10 game package next year. But goodness, I hope them continuing to play Jason Kidd basketball after he's left was just not wanting to change too much too quick, because this style and personnel won't work.

Bledsoe has had a solid year, but him and Giannis don't fit well. If Bledsoe were a bit better of a shooter it'd work, but he ain't.

1. LeBron played great in the clutch and those games counted, even if they're not project-able going forward.
2. AD's insistence on not playing his natural position is more damaging than LeBron's insistence on not playing the position he's aged into.
3. Their per minute offense stats are so close that LeBron playing a few more games than AD balances out LeBron's terrible defense.

#1 would be a fairly strong argument if the comparison were LeBron vs Westbrook or Towns, each of whom struggled in the clutch leading to a number of tough losses. But most other MVP candidates, including AD, also performed well in the clutch (on both sides of the floor). The Pelicans outperformed their expected record by several wins as well. If you want to say LeBron was better in late & close situations, I won't argue, but it's more on the level of a tiebreaker than a significant edge.

#2 is dumb. Davis does not force the Pelicans to play him at PF, nor would it even matter if he had. The Pelicans were equally good with Davis at PF and at C this year [a bit more on this below], and he split his minutes evenly. They were quite good with Davis on the floor no matter what, and quite bad without him. Conversely, the Cavs were very average with LeBron on the floor, and very average without him.

#3 is an even worse argument. If you concede that their offense is close, there's no logical way to have LeBron ahead. Playing 10% more balances out the difference between a terrible defender and a great defender? That's literal nonsense. And pretty much all the MVP candidates managed LeBron's roughly 60% True Shooting on 30% Usage--Davis, Giannis, Lillard, Oladipo, Kyrie, at a minimum. Then there are guys like Curry and Harden who exceeded those levels. Putting LeBron ahead of everyone other than Harden, and in particular ahead of AD, is basically saying that defense has only a small fraction of offense's importance, no matter how low you set the replacement level to reward LeBron's extra playing time.

LeBron's MVP case is basically a carbon copy of Kobe 2013, who as far as I can tell is the last player to get MVP traction where (a) his team wasn't particularly good with him on the court and (b) his team wasn't bad with him off it. Aging top-level superstars who played way more minutes than expected and put up some huge numbers, though their individual and team defense cratered and their teams substantially underachieved compared to preseason expectations. Kobe finished 5th in the balloting, and was way behind the top 3. It looks like LeBron will fare better.

My MVP ballot would probably go (1) Harden, (2) Davis, (3) Oladipo [criminally underrated in these discussions- he pretty clearly was the Eastern Conference MVP in my opinion], (4) Lillard, (5) ??? [I could see any of Giannis, LeBron, Westbrook, or Lowry here, not to mention CP3, Curry, or Butler, who were much more valuable on a rate basis but missed a lot of time].

Btw: if we're talking about smart things we said during the season, I'm pretty sure I said that New Orleans was going to be better with Cousins out than with him in there.
Up to Jan 27 the Pelicans were 27-21 (46 win pace) and after the injury, they went 21-13 (51 win pace).

The Pelicans didn't actually get better after losing Cousins. They were 10th by SRS up to January 27, and they finished the year 12th. Just about every non-tanking team had a better record and point differential after January, because roughly 1/3 of the league was actively trying to lose late in the season.

[1908] LeBron and Davis aren't near equals in terms of offense unless all you're considering is individual scoring. LeBron is an offense on to himself and creates a massive amount of efficient scoring opportunities for everyone on the court with him. It's probably the thing he does best at this point so to miss that misses a huge chunk of his value.

#2 is dumb. Davis does not force the Pelicans to play him at PF, nor would it even matter if he had. The Pelicans were equally good with Davis at PF and at C this year [a bit more on this below], and he split his minutes evenly. They were quite good with Davis on the floor no matter what, and quite bad without him. Conversely, the Cavs were very average with LeBron on the floor, and very average without him.

Uh ... Davis does force the Pelicans to have a Center and play that center. No one goes on the record about this, but it's pretty well understood.

The Pelicans didn't actually get better after losing Cousins. They were 10th by SRS up to January 27, and they finished the year 12th. Just about every non-tanking team had a better record and point differential after January, because roughly 1/3 of the league was actively trying to lose late in the season.

I really disagree with this approach to measuring team quality. The Pelicans improved their SRS, their record, and their underlying stats. Just because the Jazz and 76ers improved more doesn't mean that the Pelicans weren't better post-Mirotic.

That said, they're moving into a new stadium and the NBA fan in me is considering getting a 10 game package next year. But goodness, I hope them continuing to play Jason Kidd basketball after he's left was just not wanting to change too much too quick, because this style and personnel won't work.

Bledsoe has had a solid year, but him and Giannis don't fit well. If Bledsoe were a bit better of a shooter it'd work, but he ain't.

it's hard for any coach to make NBA players do things they don't want to do, but it's especially hard for an interim lame duck who replaced someone who was still well liked in the locker room. and that's assuming this guy is even good at his job.

For some reason, NBA on TNT dropped me and I can't watch the OT. Watching the Indiana game. LBJ's defense is just terrible. He stands in the middle of the court and makes his teammates matchup for him.

For some reason, NBA on TNT dropped me and I can't watch the OT. Watching the Indiana game. LBJ's defense is just terrible. He stands in the middle of the court and makes his teammates matchup for him.

good thing for him that his teammates will be kawhi, covington, simmons and embiid next year.

If you're Cleveland, this is a little troubling: not only do you lose today, you do so with Bogdonovich and Sabonis shooting like poop, and JR Smith shooting really well. This series is going to be a grind.

ABC just said that this was LeBron's first career loss in a first-round Game 1. Elsewhere, I saw a stat that LeBron hadn't lost a first-round game at all since 2012, when the Knicks took Game 4 against the Heat. (I haven't checked either of these.)

Let's not sugarcoat it. The Cavs are a bad defensive team. They have few players who are committed and capable on that end. LeBron, who once deserved to win a DPOY, displayed bad habits, picking up players late, loafing on switches, and not getting back. Kyrie last year died on the first screen almost every possession in the regular season. The Cavs were 3.2 points worse on defense with Kyrie on the court. The root cause of their defensive troubles often looks to be lineup. The Cavs were awful at forcing turnovers (29th in the league) and bad at rebounding (22nd). Typically, you would expect a team that plays small to pick up more turnovers and a team that plays big to pick up more rebounds. The Cavs awkwardly sandwiched themselves into being bad at both. The bench units were the chief culprit as players like Deron Williams, Kyle Korver and Richard Jefferson were simply not fast enough to get into the passing lanes.

The Cavs also showed poor discipline in transition. For a team that did not attempt to get on the offensive glass, they allowed a high number of transition attempts and allowed opponents to finish at the highest rate in the NBA (14.7% of possessions in transition, 7th worst in the NBA, 1.18 PPP in transition allowed). In the playoffs, rather than flipping a switch, they fell down, giving up more transition opportunities (16%). Every other team who gave up more transition got more offensive rebounds except one: the Kings. When you're being compared to the Kings on defense, it's an area that needs improvement. Transition defense is about scheme and effort. Perhaps the issue is that too many guys are trying to sneak an offensive rebound, but from what I saw in the playoffs, there was also a distinct lack of effort to get back on defense. Those bad habits have to change if they want to win the finals.

What else?

I haven't talked about the new guys that much. That's because I don't think they matter that much. Ultimately, the Cavs are built around LeBron and shooters. Wade, Rose and Crowder aren't really the kinds of players you look to slot in around LeBron. Maybe the offense changes with Kyrie out to feature more cuts, like the Miami motion machine. I thought that offense worked because so many guys cut and slid. Not sure if it can work with just one guy who likes to cut. I think that Lue and LeBron gravitate towards more shooting as the answer. If the new guys can spot up to provide space for LeBron, they'll fit in. If they can't, they will sit.

I think the Cavs are in a remarkably tenuous position, concealed by their tremendous success over the last three years. One thing I have noticed as a fan of the Lakers is that when the wheels come off a dynasty, it happens in a particular way. The team gets old, and is unable to replenish their depth with young players. They get brittle on defense, prone to breaking in big moments. The main stars might be as good as ever on offense, but small flaws creep into their game which didn't exist before. The Cavs, to me, sit at the razor's edge: they can tip over into a first round exit at any moment, and no one is willing to accept it as a possibility.

Well, I still don't think Indiana wins, in part because James will play better, and in part because I expect he'll get help from Nance, especially, who I really like. The refs will probably get more involved in the next game as well. Finally, I know this is a small part of your overall good post, but the Cavs are NOT a dynasty. They're a team that has LBJ on it. Miami, had it stayed together, was one; GS is one; SA was one. Cleveland has had dynastic rule over the East. No more.

But I really enjoyed how Indiana played. So fast, so aggressive all over, especially on defense. Just jumped everything, knowing they were fast enough to recover, and ran constantly.

Finally, I know this is a small part of your overall good post, but the Cavs are NOT a dynasty. They're a team that has LBJ on it. Miami, had it stayed together, was one; GS is one; SA was one. Cleveland has had dynastic rule over the East. No more.

I guess I view LeBron as the dynasty. I think this is an interesting point that reasonable people can disagree on, although I am curious about other posters' perspective.

I guess I view LeBron as the dynasty. I think this is an interesting point that reasonable people can disagree on, although I am curious about other posters' perspective.

I had a gut reaction that "no way are the Cavs a dynasty" but none of my traditional standards for a dynasty were missing. So I created a new requirement: laymen (or very very casual fans) need to be able to identify at least 2 people on it. There's no robin to Lebron's Batman.

Jordan and Pippen and Rodman and maybe even Horace Grant
Shaq and Kobe
Robinson and Duncan
Duncan and Parker and Ginobili
Steph and Thompson and Green

Even the most casual of fans would know all the players in those dynasties. If people know of Love, it's not in the most positive of lights.

I'd probably consider the 90's Braves a dynasty too, but their run was A LOT longer than the Cavs. If your claim to greatness is only 3 seasons, you'd better be really damn dominant during those years if you want to be considered a dynasty (like the 2015-2017 Warriors, if that's all they had).

Dynasty is one of those things like generational where a somewhat vague word can be interpreted different ways.

I think of dynasty as a team that was either the best team in the NBA or an all-time team for at least 3-4 years. I'm not sure I'd have any team as a dynasty between the Jordan bulls and the current Warriors.

I don't think the Spurs, LeBrons, or Kobe/Shaq Lakers qualify. I think the Spurs basically have been great by being able to put together teams that were always at least a fringe contender, but rarely in that stretch were they ever overpowering.

I guess the peak of Kobe/Shaq could qualify, but it was a bit short.

Maybe the Spurs look more dynastic if the leagues were more balanced and they make a couple more finals and a couple more conference finals. But I guess that is kind of my point, was I don't remember a year in the last ~15, even as a Spurs fan where they came into the year and I was thinking "Yeah, we're the best team in the league". Although maybe the Kobe/Shaq which then turned to the Big 3 Spurs who won 3 of 5 and went to the conference finals another year - but really I didn't think those Spurs were all-time great teams, there was just a bit of a power void there which they filled. For instance, I think the 12-13 and 13-14 Spurs would have played those other Spurs teams off the floor.

NBA and MLB should be evaluated differently as MLB has the playoff crapshoot. NBA the better team usually wins, and even when upsets happen you aren't going to fluke your way to a title. If you win a title, you're pretty damn good. Didn't St. Louis win a WS a decade ago with like 82 wins? #### that noise.

I think of dynasty as a team that was either the best team in the NBA or an all-time team for at least 3-4 years. I'm not sure I'd have any team as a dynasty between the Jordan bulls and the current Warriors.

I don't think the Spurs, LeBrons, or Kobe/Shaq Lakers qualify.

I mean, if you think the Shaq/Kobe Lakers don't qualify after winning 3 titles in a row and going to a 4th Finals, you basically don't think there are any dynasties in the NBA.

Well, you could put the bar at Jordan's Bulls, Russell's Celtics, Kundla's Lakers, and Magic's Lakers, but that rules out the current Warriors by a mile. That's pretty much where you'd have to set the bar to rule out the Shaq/Kobe Lakers teams.

I dunno if Jimmy Butler was psyched out on being fouled there, but I think his foot was even on the line. You just gotta get within 5 feet of the 3 point line, rise, and fire in that situation imo. Also impressed with what seemed to be zero plan on that play.

Going to bed, but I think looking at the underlying metrics the Lakers weren't that great, especially outside of that 3 year peak. They were good, certainly, but I'd take the Warriors 4 year peak easily over the Lakers 3 or 5 year peak then.

@AaronGleeman
Imagine if Jimmy Butler somehow makes that shot, the whole team goes nuts, and then 30 seconds later everyone realizes his foot was over the line. It could have been a worse ending, is I guess what I'm saying.

Going to bed, but I think looking at the underlying metrics the Lakers weren't that great, especially outside of that 3 year peak.

Inside of that three year peak, they were back-to-back-to-back NBA champions. You literally can't do better than that. How many back-to-back-to-back champions are NOT all-time great teams? By my count, none.

Every fan of every 50+ win team thinks their team has a chance to win a championship. Maybe not a good chance, but a chance. If they up the intensity of defense, or if second year with potential makes the leap in the playoffs, or because the match-ups are just right. It may not be logical, but these persistent dreams are why we enjoy sports. Because every so often it happens, and when it happens to your team, it's ####### unbelievable.

from now on, i will read every hutchersam post as if adam baldwin was writing it. it is a surprisingly perfect match.

90% of what the sixers are isn't visible from the surface. they are an iceberg.

I'm going to recycle this argument in 200 different ways over the next 10 years.

If the Sixers are an iceberg, does that make Embiid the Titanic?

One of my greater accomplishments in this world is never having dated a woman who wanted to watch Titanic.

Porzingis has all-defensive team potential. Blocked Okafor a couple times, great instincts, excellent positioning, good feet, affects possessions regularly with his length.

i also think all-defensive team is a bit overzealous, but the guy does have big time upside. he'll be fun to watch if he doesn't get ruined from playing in a rudderless organization with an unproven (and likely terrible and in over his head) coach, alongside a egoist star with outsized influence and a 12MM head of basketball ops who brags about doing as little work as possible and whose presence sets the table for isiah thomas taking back full control of the organization.

if stockpiling first round picks guaranteed anything, BOS would be entering a golden age of showered riches, so it obviously doesn't work like that, but at this point, more is better than less.

If I got even slightly decent odds I'd consider laying down a bet on the entire 2017-18 season being wiped out. I think the coming labor war is going to be much uglier than most people suspect.

It's interesting that baseball players, who seem considerably less intelligent than football and basketball players on the whole, have had the strongest union with the best representation over time. Hopefully Michele Roberts changes this.

Is Philadelphia really tanking 20 seasons in a row to collect enough assets to be swept by the Rockets in the Finals?

Don't worry, that's not an option. Either Heinke will be fired long before then or Joel Embiid will be winning his 10th straight Finals MVP. There's no in between.

And the main point of Philly’s unprecedented strategy is that it can absorb a blow exactly like Embiid’s foot injury. If your owners are only willing to punt on two seasons, you are at the mercy of lottery balls and injury luck. Blow one draft, or fall from no. 1 to no. 4 in the Anthony Davis lottery, and the teardown gives way to panicked spending toward mediocrity.

If Philly is really willing to do this for five, six, or seven seasons, it almost cannot fail. It will either land a superstar or draft so many good players that they will gather a solid NBA team. Brett Brown may check himself into an asylum before then, but if you keep getting lottery picks, you will eventually succeed.

I continue to be amazed at the sort of awful aesthetic horror that must be fixed that are the Sixers, vs., say, what the Knicks are doing, which is just fine and a-ok.

76ers: There are different kinds of fans, but I would make two points:

1. The kind of people who post 10-20 times a day on this thread are probably not typical fans.
2. The 76ers might be fun in a way, but they have also lost 127 games in two years and have made it clear that they are not trying to win right now. If your interest is in seeing them win, I would think that would get a little tiresome. And most of those fun guys probably won't be on the roster when the 76ers make their next playoff appearance.

If Philly is really willing to do this for five, six, or seven seasons, it almost cannot fail. It will either land a superstar or draft so many good players that they will gather a solid NBA team.

The concept of this strategy being almost unable to fail is interesting - assembling a "solid NBA team" shouldn't take close to 5-7 years of tanking. If that's the stated goal, and the rpice, you never hire the guy. I know it's not the stated goal, but that quote is not a good supporting argument, because:

1. It misrepresents the stated goal, by making it much easier to achieve.
2. It is so much easier to achieve that it shouldn't take nearly that long.
3. The cost of driving fans away in the interim is pretty high if you start tanking for that long.

If Hinkie was to suddenly appear in a friend's home while I was there, it would take more restraint than I probably have to not make him the 76ers ex-GM. My issue with the team is that they are trying to lose both with roster composition and in-game actions. Last time I checked, one competes to win. I understand taking your lumps with youth, and trying to grow and build. Management is putting a bad product on the floor, and (in my opinion) doing things that directly and indirectly lead to losing games during the season.

i agree (well, hope) that 5-7 years is an exaggeration, but if you think about it, how many years have the kings and the bobcats and the wolves been terrible? if those teams are taking the better part of a decade to rebuild, maybe it's harder than it looks and a 5-7 year timeline is just building in some slack in case things unexpectedly go wrong.

the kind of fan who will walk away from the team and never come back probably isn't very valuable to the team in the first place. old fans are less valuable than young fans and i've yet to see a 6 year old swear a blood oath against a franchise for tanking.

you're not gonna lose a generation of fans over 5 years. at most, you'll lose a year or two of teens, but anyone younger will still be impressionable when the team turns around and anyone older already had their minds made up one way or the other.

sure, many things could go wrong: okafor might suck; embiid might be glue; they might never pick higher than #3; the heat, kings and lakers picks might wind up in the 20s; saric could refuse to play for PHI; dozens of 2nd round picks could turn out to be worthless; their cap room may never amount to anything. any of that might happen.

but the likelihood that all of those things will happen is infinitesimal. even if this rebuild fails to yield a lebron/durant/duncan/davis, the number of assets already on hand will leave the sixers with a roster that's 10-12 deep in high-upside young talent by opening night 2017.

I'm loving the job Hinkie has done, I fully support everything he has done and I wouldn't trade him for any other GM.

I love the Philly argument that the failed seasons will be forgotten. It's like saying, "success is inevitable because our failures don't count!"

I don't follow that logic at all, berg. Do you honestly think that if the 2019 Sixers play in the Finals, fans will be like "yeah, this is cool, but they had a bad record a few straight years a few years back so I'm not tuning in."

NBA and MLB should be evaluated differently as MLB has the playoff crapshoot. NBA the better team usually wins, and even when upsets happen you aren't going to fluke your way to a title. If you win a title, you're pretty damn good. Didn't St. Louis win a WS a decade ago with like 82 wins? #### that noise.

I'll concede that point, but I also think it's possible to be the 2nd best NBA team for a stretch of years and still be considered a dynasty. If the Robinson/Duncan Spurs just happened to be in Jordan's Bulls, and lost in the finals every year, they'd still be a dynasty in my book.

And while Spicey doesn't have confidence in the Spurs being a dynasty, I think their longetivity puts them over the top. 20 years from now, their run will still be talked about. Two older fans could be strangers and still talk about that run. The historic memory of them makes them a dynasty.

giannis is better preparation for 7 games against lebron than jaylen tatum.

I was going to say this was a bad take because Milwaukee is bad and plays bad but has one good star that can single-handedly make things happen, but then, yeah, actually this is absolutely the correct take.

I'll concede that point, but I also think it's possible to be the 2nd best NBA team for a stretch of years and still be considered a dynasty. If the Robinson/Duncan Spurs just happened to be in Jordan's Bulls, and lost in the finals every year, they'd still be a dynasty in my book.

Does anyone other than KronicFatigue think that a team can win one or fewer titles and still be considered a dynasty? Everyone's entitled to an opinion, of course, but that one strikes me as pretty eccentric.

In terms of the Cavs, I'm with tship that the dynasty is LeBron, not Cleveland. Cleveland has had a good run the past few years, and I'd be more open to considering them a dynasty if they'd won a title in 2015 or 2017, or if they somehow manage it this year. Otherwise, the Heatles are a dynasty, but Cleveland hasn't done enough.

Does anyone other than KronicFatigue think that a team can win one or fewer titles and still be considered a dynasty? Everyone's entitled to an opinion, of course, but that one strikes me as pretty eccentric.

Well, there is the case of the St. Louis Rams/Greatest Show on Turf. Only one title, but at least semi-dynastic.

Dynasty seems like it's a question of where you draw the line between insanely dominant teams and more run-of-the-mill dominant teams (and how much you put on championships and longevity)

Kind of in order

Russell Celtics
---
Jordan Bulls
--
Magic Lakers
--
Kobe Lakers (I can see an argument that there are two mini-dynasties--I like that argument since I hate Kobe...but)
Duncan Spurs (similar as above with Kobe except I love Duncan)
--
Mikan Lakers
Bird Celtics
--
Reed Knicks
Mahorn Pistons
LeBron Heat
Golden State (for now!)
--
Hakeem Rockets
--
Here it starts to widen--LeBron Cleveland and the insanely great late Doc Sixers here along with some of the other teams mentioned in comments plus probably 70s Bullets plus late 50s Hawks and I guess the sixties Lakers.

If you have a George Mikan exception for guys who couldn't survive a 24-second shot clock, you can cut them.

If you have a one dynasty at a time rule, you can place the line between Mikan and Bird.

My own definition probably sits right below the Bird Celtics. A Golden State win would move them from one category to another.

If you don't worry about the weird Jordan interlude or the regular season, you could nudge the Rockets up.

If you go below the Hakeem Rockets and add say the Dirk Mavs, you're going to end up with a pretty big pool pretty quick.

i'd define an NBA "dynasty" as +/- 5 continuous years of regular season *dominance*, plus multiple titles. i'd also say there can't be a changing of the guard within a dynasty, which is why i draw a line between the spurs' 1st title and their last 4, and between the shaq/kobe lakers and the kobe/pau lakers.

dirk's mavs are not a dynasty.
hakeem's rockets are not a dynasty.
duncan/robinson spurs are not a dynasty.

GSW is a dynasty.
shaq/kobe lakers are a dynasty.
kobe/pau lakers are not.
duncan/parker/ginobili spurs are.

i'd lean towards no on the heatles (too short a peak, lost twice in the finals), but i'm willing to call lebron a dynasty unto himself because not doing so would distort the last 15 years of NBA history.

i'd also say it's hard (but not impossible) for multiple dynasties to exist at the same time.

these are the dynasties that i recognize in my lifetime:
jordan/pippen bulls
shaq/kobe lakers
duncan/parker/ginobili spurs
lebron
curry/green/thompson/durant GSW

I feel like people are sleeping on Golden State's claim. 3 year run with 2 titles, 1 Finals loss (to LeBron), 73 wins, I think the best 3 year record, HOF talent all over the place, the style points, the out of control SRS type stats. I mean, yeah, they didn't win that 3rd title but I still think it's a peak that's in the discussion for best 3 year run of all time.

I get the conversation about the length of time necessary to make something "dynastic." I do not get the conversation around a long-time #2 team, however. The Bills were really good. The Cavs have been really good. The Jazz were really good. They're great characters in stories about other dynasties (Bulls, GSW) or regarding futility (Bills).

Kyle Neubeck @KyleNeubeck
Scott Foster and Tony Brothers is probably not a combination that will be beneficial to Philly. Would not be surprised to see game trend toward uneven pace of Game 1’s first half. twitter.com/IraHeatBeat/st…

i'd lean towards no on the heatles (too short a peak, lost twice in the finals), but i'm willing to call lebron a dynasty unto himself because not doing so would distort the last 15 years of NBA history.

Why would it do that? From a team perspective, as opposed to a player perspective, there hasn't been a dynasty. Dynasties are about teams. And I will bet you Cleveland fans aren't feeling too juicy about the Heat titles.

I wouldn't be quite so rigid with the definition, but I agree that regular season success has to play a major role. Calling the Hakeem Rockets a dynasty because they won 2 titles is crazy. If you're a run-of-the-mill team as the games are happening, you can't become a dynasty in retrospect by winning the title.

On GregD's list, I'd definitely move the Bird Celtics up a tier and get rid of the Rockets. I can't decide whether Golden State should be a tier higher or merely at the top of that tier. In a few weeks it should be a bit clearer. The Kobe Lakers and Duncan Spurs seem hardest to place. Both won 5 titles though in unconventional ways compared to the rest. Kobe tied those Lakers runs together, but Shaq led the 3-peat more than Kobe, and there were a few entirely mediocre years before the Kobe + ridiculous frontcourt stretch. The Duncan Spurs are the most consistently great regular season team ever, but they never won back-to-back and they had a bunch of 1st and 2nd round losses in between all the titles--so they didn't feel dominant in the same way.

I vote no on Dirk's Mavs, and w/r/t the Malone/Stockton Jazz, I'll make up a personal new term on the spot and call them a Franchise Dynasty. For Jazz fans, that's a dynasty, something grandparents will be talking about with their grandchildren. But it didn't have a league wide impact.

Multiple titles is almost always needed, absent some extreme circumstance. Playing in the same era as Jordan's Bulls might qualify (we don't really have a strong test case). The Bills and Braves getting unlucky (and those sports having a more random playoff system) are enough of extreme-circumstance to put them over the top.

Does anyone other than KronicFatigue think that a team can win one or fewer titles and still be considered a dynasty? Everyone's entitled to an opinion, of course, but that one strikes me as pretty eccentric.

I think this is possible in baseball and probably only baseball because of the postseason being a crapshoot, and maybe only the Braves of the 90s. I feel very confident intuitively that the Braves of the 90s were a dynasty despite only one title.

I am a quick instinctive no on any one-title NBA or NFL teams let alone the Jim Kelly zero-title bills. The Manning Colts are probably a good limiting case -- they won 12 games 7 straight years, 10 games 9 straight years -- but only one super bowl (and, correlatedly, the existence of the Patriots) has me a no on them, and they are probably one of the best one-championship teams out there from an evaluating dynasty perspective (consistently good, consistent personnel, inner circle Hall of Fame star).

Damn, 1995 just turned me into a no on Kelly's Bills, b/c yes 1) Colts are better 2) Colts have a bigger excuse w/r/t Pats and 3) Colts aren't a dynasty in my mind. I cared more about football during Kelly's Bills so it's more ingrained in my mind.

Another one: I don't know where historians draw the lines time-wise between their iterations, but if you wanted to argue that the 1946-1956 Dodgers were a dynasty I'd probably accept that. 6 pennants and 1 title, won 92+ games 9 years out of 11. I think having no or limited interleague play makes it much easier to have one dynasty in each league.

w/r/t the Malone/Stockton Jazz, I'll make up a personal new term on the spot and call them a Franchise Dynasty. For Jazz fans, that's a dynasty, something grandparents will be talking about with their grandchildren. But it didn't have a league wide impact.

I'd agree with all that. That was the closest the Jazz will ever come to winning a championship(s), so Stockton to Malone will always be the "golden years" that we look back on with reverence.

The Spurs' sustained, long-term success is comparable to that of the Earl Weaver Orioles. I wonder if the 2018 Spurs are re-enacting the 1986 Orioles. The Orioles in '86 looked like they were on their way to a typically strong season, and were only two games out of first in early August before it all fell apart, dramatically so -- it was a complete sea change in the franchise's narrative. They also had issues with their superstar (Eddie Murray) that year. The Spurs played very well (even without Kawhi) for the first two-thirds of the season, and then almost wound up dropping out of the playoffs, as the Kawhi soap opera intensified. The Warriors will finish them off quickly. Kawhi's already mentally checked out of the organization; if the Spurs don't get a good return for him they likely have a late-80's Orioles future looming...

STIGGLES could almost taste that second round match-up against a wounded Boston or the #7 and Philly going all the way to the ECF! Alas, it's probably not meant to be.

there's still a decent chance the sixers can take the 3-seed, imo.

they'll need to finish a game ahead of IND/CLE because of the tiebreaker (division title), but they're already a game ahead of IND and they'll be a game ahead of CLE if they beat them head to head. the rest of the schedule favors the sixers pretty significantly.

beat ATL/DAL/BRK/ATL; take 1 from DET/CHA/MIL; beat CLE head-to head. that gets them 50 wins. that still might not be enough, but it would give them a chance.

if the NBA uses the same playoff schedule as last year, embiid can be back for game 3 in the first round if he's only out for 3 weeks.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm more optimistic than stiggles about the Sixers. I saw that they are a couple points above average with Simmons and no Embiid post-ASB, and more to the point I just don't really think Indiana is any good. I'd bet heavily on Oladipo being a fluke year rather than a Leap and suspect they're outkicking their true talent level by quite a bit (and probably getting lucky, they are +120 points overall on the season or so which is not statistically different from zero over several thousand possessions). I'd call it about 50-50 for Sixers without Embiid versus Pacers.

I hope he makes as full a recovery as he can, but I think the Sixers should expect no Embiid unless they get to the Conference finals.

Which without Embiid, they won't. Without him they're probably going down in the first round. I don't think we'll see him again this year.

Seems weird to say, and I'm echoing what was said earlier, but at least it wasn't a foot/leg injury and he can rest all summer.

I was (correctly for once!) optimistic about Embiid's health entering the season, so I'm gonna say he comes back quickly wearing a mask and will be entirely fine. It's his year.